Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Piltdown Hoax

     Between 1912 and 1913, in the small English village of Piltdown,  Charles Dawson--an amateur archaeologist who specialized in fish fossil--, Arthur Smith Woodward--leading Geologist and keeper of the Geology department in England's Natural History Museum--, and Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin--a French Paleontologist and Jesuit priest-- discovered what was believed by many as the 'missing link' between apes and humans. There they found fragments of a skull--that was distinctly human--, a jawbone--ape-like in structure with two flat molar teeth intact that were like that of modern humans--and a canine tooth. In December of 1912, Woodward announced the discoveries at a meeting of the Geological Society; claiming the fossil at an estimate of 500,000 mya. This spurred excitement and controversy in the scientific community.



 
     Before these discoveries, England had to yet have discovered fossils of primitive humans; France, Germany, and Asia were leading the way. Some said the jawbone and the skull were too distinct to had been considered part of the same individual, but without the proper technology to back their suspicions, they were left helpless. Arthur Keith, a renowned English anatomist and a great supporter of Dawn man, was the one who pieced together the fragments. In completing the skull, they finally announced it as Eoanthropus dawsonii, or Dawn man. Eoanthropus dawsonii supported Keith's personal theory that humans developed a large brain before they walked upright, which was later disproved. It was not until Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin found a canine tooth, the last piece to the puzzle, which further supported the discovery and convinced many more. The bones were kept in the Natural History Museum, authorizing only a select few to study them.




     After Dawson died in 1916, no fossils similar to that of Eoanthropus dawsonii--aside from other bones they found at the Piltdown pit--were found. On the contrary, scientists began to unearth new fossils in Asia and Africa that came hundreds of thousands of years after Piltdown Man. They were found to be less human with small skulls, but practically overlooked due to the fact that they contraindicated Eoanthropus dawsonii. In 1949, Dr Kenneth Oakley--a geologist, paleontologist, and physical anthropologist of London's Natural History Museum--exposed through newly discovered fluoride dating that the bones were merely around 50,000 years old. This puzzled Dr Oakley and later in 1953, with the help of Dr Joseph Weiner, a physical anthropologist, and Wilfrid Le Gros Clark, a human anatomist, tested the bones once again with a refined version of fluoride dating and exposed Piltdown man as a hoax. They discovered that the jawbone appeared to come from a female orangutan that was less than 100 years old. They also found that the teeth appeared filed down and the front part of the jaw was broken off. Apart from that, the stains on the bones showed to have been made chemically to look older than perceived.


     This caused turbulence in the scientific community and society. Science almost lost all its credibility and those who supported Piltdown man became ashamed, as they were seen as incompetent. For Forty years, humankind was lead to the erroneous conclusion of Piltdown man. National pride all but blinded some of the scientists in that era, but some also fell victims of groupthink and confirmation bias. Humans by nature make mistakes; making it impossible to completely remove the "human" factor from science. By removing the human factor, you would inevitably be removing humans from the process. Although, through the rigorous process of testing and peer review, otherwise known as the scientific method, we are able to extinguish those mistake and come as close to facts as we can. From this, people can take the fact that you shouldn't trust everything you hear or read, even if the source is an authority figure such as a scientist. We must stay curious, skeptical, and use our logical reasoning and critical thinking skills as a means to find the answers to which we seek. 


Piltdown excavation site. From left to right: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Charles Dawson, an unidentified worker and Arthur Smith Woodward.


 (sources: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/piltdown-man-archaeologys-greatest-hoax http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_piltdown_man/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html)




6 comments:

  1. I really liked the picture you added to this post, it made it easier to visualize. I really like you point on if we were to remove the human factor we would have to remove humans altogether. I also think that it is because of the human factor that so many answers we have today have been found. Overall, really good job.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very good synopsis, particularly your inclusion of the significance of this find, namely its support of the theory that humans developed large brains before bipedalism. Given that why did you use the term "missing link"? Did you get a chance to review the information on this term in the assignment folder to understand this is an inaccurate depiction of the hominid ancestry?

    I agree that national pride was likely a factor in convincing the scientific community to accept the find with minimal scrutiny, but what faults may have persuaded the perpetrators to create the hoax in the first place?

    Good discussion the process and technology of science that helped to uncover the hoax.

    While I agree with your discussion on the human factor, you seem to consider that humans only have negative factors to contribute to the process of science. Do they contribute nothing positive that you would not want to lose? How about curiosity, ingenuity and intuitiveness? Would you even be able to do science without these factors?

    Good life lesson. Great images.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I decided to use the term "missing link" simply because around that time, scientists believed Piltdown man was, in fact, the "missing link" to our lineage from which we evolved. I did not use it because I believe it is an accurate depiction of the primate lineage. The faults which persuaded the perpetrator, or perpetrators, would depend on who was the one behind the Piltdown hoax.

      For instance, years later, after Piltdown man was exposed as a hoax, a trunk with Martin A. C. Hilton's initials were found in the attic of the Natural History Museum after his passing. Inside the trunk, they found bones with carvings and stains similar to those of Piltdown man. Martin A. C. Hilton was known to not be very fond of Charles Dawson, his drive. Charles Dawson, being an amateur, was less predisposed to perceive authenticity. But if that is true, why did many other scientists not notice the forgery. Arthur Smith Woodward and Arthur Keith, a great supporter of Piltdown man as it supported his theory, were well renowned and respected scientists of that time. Many would not even think of standing up to them, causing the scientific community to fall victims of groupthink, confirmation bias, or national pride; or a mixture of them. Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin may have been a victim of confirmation bias as he desired to unify science and the Church; it's likely he may have been a conspirator, as well, for the same reason. However, it is a bit peculiar that it wasn't until after Hilton's death in which the trunk was found. It's likely that someone may have taken Hilton's death as an opportunity and used him as a scapegoat. If that's true, then any one of Charles Dawson, Arthur Keith, or Arthur Smith Woodward may have been at fault of their egos; wanting the fame that would coincide with the Piltdown man. They may have also been conspirators with each other. Due to the many angles that arise with Piltdown hoax, it would make it difficult to discover the true perpetrators.

      Of course, I don't believe that humans only contribute negative factors to the process of science. If it wasn't for humans, there would be no science. I was merely focusing on the precision of the scientific process, as opposed to how we come about our discoveries. "Curiosity, ingenuity and intuitiveness," as you said, are essential elements in science; without them there would not be a field of science.

      Delete
    2. Roman,

      Thank you for the response.

      With regard to the term "missing link", this was explicitly included and highlighted in the assignment guidelines:

      "Note: The term “missing link” does NOT qualify as the significance of this find. Read the related material in the assignment folder to understand why. Please do
      NOT use this term in your post."

      Continuing from your comment, you said:

      "The faults which persuaded the perpetrator, or perpetrators, would depend on who was the one behind the Piltdown hoax."

      Yes, but can't we speculate as to what your faults might have been anyway? We don't need to know the specific culprit to consider what might have motivated him, as you have demonstrated in your next paragraph.

      I agree with your final statement regarding the human factor.

      Delete
  3. First, I really appreciate how you added the visuals in your blog post. It totally enticed me. Also you were really accurate with the historical events. It was obvious that you did your research. I like your discussion on the human factor, it had an opposing position but I understand your stance and appreciate it. You think that humans have negative factors to science, I disagree but I think you have a great argument. I actually agree with you when you say "Science almost lost all its credibility and those who supported Piltdown man became ashamed, as they were seen as incompetent". I think it was really embarrassing that it took us so long to correct our errors with the Piltdown hoax.
    Great Blog Post!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello, Haile.

    Thank you for the comment! I'm glad the pictures made my post more interesting. I hope I changed your mind about what I think humans contribute to field of science in the post above. Like I said, I was merely focusing on the precision of the scientific process. Due to the Piltdown hoax, I thought it was appropriate to include the mistakes to which we contribute. I agree that it was embarrassing to the scientific community how long it took them until the Piltdown man was exposed as a hoax. Although, you can't ignore the fact the humans are greatly influenced by social interactions, whether it be real or not. I don't think society should have faulted them as much as they did, after all, we are all humans and we make mistakes; scientists are no exception.

    ReplyDelete